You've never seen a school lunch like this one, made with hydroponic vegetables and free-range chicken by a brash British superchef. Not that the elementary schoolchildren care. Most sing-song "Pizza!" when given a choice between the gourmet grub and the reheated factory-made frozen pizza. At the end of the lunch period, a mound of chicken sits untouched, and even more is dumped into the trash after a few wary nibbles.

That much we do know from watching Jamie Oliver's"Food Revolution" reality TV series now airing on ABC. But we're not supposed to know that Jamie is substituting high-end foodstuffs that normally grace three-star restaurants for the cheap, institutional fare dished out in public schools like West Virginia's Central City Elementary School, the setting for the first two episodes.

At the end of one episode, we hear Rhonda McCoy, director of food services for the local county, tell Jamie that he's over budget and did not meet the fat content and calorie guidelines, but she's going to let him continue with the "revolution" as long as he addresses these issues. What is not revealed is that the "meal cost at Central City Elementary during television production more than doubled with ABC Productions paying the excess expense," according to a document obtained by AlterNet from the West Virginia Department of Education.

Jamie landed on America's shores with the self-anointed mission to remake our eating habits for the better. Ground zero is Huntington, West Virginia. In an opening montage we are told the city of 50,000 "was recently named the unhealthiest city in America ... where nearly half of the adults are considered obese" as we see lardy folk shuffle through the frame.

While Jamie's efforts touch on many problems of school food -- from overuse of processed foods to lack of funding to French fries being considered a vegetable -- the "Food Revolution" is a failure because the entertainment narrative is unable to deal with complexities or systemic issues. Instead, all problems are reduced to individual stories and choices. The series may sprinkle some facts and hot-button issues into the mix, but what keeps the viewer hungering for more is the personal dramas, conflicts and weepy moments that are the staples of reality TV.

Because Jamie is packaged as a one-man whirlwind, tangling with "lunch lady Alice" while "Stirn' things oop," there is no mention of the existing, deep-rooted movement for local, healthy food from the farm to the market to the table, as well as schools. It's also more fun and shocking to "slag off" a poor school district in Appalachia for serving pizza and flavored milk for breakfast than to examine how West Virginia has imposed some of the strictest school nutritional standards in the nation. But that's entertainment.

The reality behind "Food Revolution" is that after the first two months of the new meals, children were overwhelmingly unhappy with the food, milk consumption plummeted and many students dropped out of the school lunch program, which one school official called "staggering." On top of that food costs were way over budget, the school district was saddled with other unmanageable expenses, and Jamie's failure to meet nutritional guidelines had school officials worried they would lose federal funding and the state department of education would intervene.

In short, the "Food Revolution" has flunked out. At Central City Elementary, where Jamie burst in with loads of fanfare, expense and energy, the school has reintroduced the regular school menu and flavored milk because the "Food Revolution" meals were so unpopular. In what looks like a face-saving gesture, Jamie's menu remains as a lunchtime option, but given the negative student response, don't be surprised if it's quietly phased out by next school year. (You can see both menus here.)

Ultimately, Jamie picked the wrong target. Dr. Carole Harris, who along with Dr. Drew Bradlyn evaluated student responses at Central City Elementary to the "Food Revolution" program, says factors such as sedentary lifestyles, fast-food consumption, family meal patterns and junk-food advertising aimed at children are "a much bigger problem than food served in schools."

Jan Poppendieck, author of Free for All: Fixing School Food in America, agrees that individual schools and districts are not the root of the problem. She says children who participate in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) "are more likely to eat healthy food" than kids who don't. Participating children are more likely to consume "low or nonfat milk, fruits, vegetables and less likely to consume desserts, snack foods, juice drinks and carbonated soda at lunch" than students who do not eat the federally subsidized lunches.

Still, there is an opportunity here. About 31.3 million schoolchildren a day participate in the NSLP, which served 5.2 billion meals in 2009 (62.5 percent of the participants qualified for free or near-free meals). Many school systems are doing what they can, but school lunches are a sorry affair, as Ed Bruske of the Slow Cook blog chronicled in one school. Using fresh, local foodstuff to remake school meals based on the most nutritious fruits, vegetables, legumes and whole grains could dramatically improve our society's eating habits, health, and agricultural and food system.

To his credit, Jamie bases his menu on these foods, but it drove students away. It shows the fatal flaw in his plan. By replacing French fries with broccoli you can't expect to change the whole school lunch system. Students are not being given a choice between a mediocre lunch and fresh, organic cuisine. It's between a mediocre lunch and junk food. No one behind the show wants to confront this reality because ABC, Jamie Oliver and Ryan Seacrest (one of the producers) all profit handsomely from the processed and junk-food industry either through advertising -- more than $15 billion in 2008 from just 15 food companies -- or in the case of Oliver, endorsements.

If Jamie and Co. wanted to make a real difference they should go after the fast-food industry and abominations like the KFC "Double Down," a breadless sandwich composed of two fried chicken cutlets piled with bacon, cheese and "Colonel's Sauce." Then again, a recent issue of the Jamie Magazinereportedly features a "wholesome" school meal of "tuna Waldorf pita with hot vanilla milk, an oaty biscuit, and a banana" that has 643 more calories and 23 grams more fat (pdf) than a Double Down.

To source, cook and get children to eat fresh, healthy local food we would need to double school food funding, get schoolchildren involved in growing and cooking their own food, ban junk-food advertising, slap a health tax on fast food, shift agribusiness subsidies to small, community-controlled farms, provide proper health care and nutrition education, and promote social and cultural changes in how American families exercise and approach, prepare and eat food. Then most children (and adults) would probably make healthy choices. But this would require a real revolution, not one manufactured for television.

Fat Mountain

The mantra of "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution" is choice. But America's ever-expanding waistline is caused by systemic issues: widespread poverty, sedentary lifestyles, junk-food advertising, a lack of health care, corporate control of the food system, the prevalence of cheap fast food, food designed to be addictive, and subsidies and policies that make meats and sugars cheaper than whole fruits and vegetables.

These factors make choice more of a construct. Many people opt for flavor-intense, highly processed, calorie-dense food because it's cheaper, easier and more fulfilling than cooking healthy foods from scratch. And there's no one helping to educate them and help modify their behaviors and habits because there is much more profit in the huge diet industry and obesity-related diseases than in prevention.

Jamie does try to tackle this problem by opening up a kitchen in Huntington with free cooking classes. Being reality TV, however, it's also used as a ploy to roll out the Edwards family -- presumably the tubbiest folks in town -- by trying to teach them healthy cooking. The "Food Revolution" found a family desperate enough for help and covetous enough of fame that they allow Jamie to pile into a mound their gruesome diet of pizza, bacon, pancakes, burgers, corndogs, eggs, fruit pies, brownies, cheese, biscuits, chips, fries, donuts and chicken nuggets.

The show unleashes a deluge of crushed emotions, culture and families sluicing through fat river with the high point being the golden-brown grease pyramid the parents and four kids consume weekly, spawning a 12-year-old child who weighs 350 pounds. It's a warmed-over intervention narrative: set-up, confrontation, confession, breakdown and makeover. Take marginal people, make them feel shitty about themselves, offer redemption and serve it up to millions of viewers.

Seated before the summit of fat, Jamie admonishes Stacie, the mom, "This stuff goes through you and your family's body every week. And I need you to know that this is going to kill your childrens early [sic]." As plaintive guitar music cues up, Jamie asks, "How are you feeling?"

"I'm just feeling really sad and depressed right now," a tearful Stacie responds. "I want my kids to succeed in life and this isn't going to get them there. ... But I'm killing them. ... Seeing that food scares me, to think that I'm opening my kids to a world of failure."

The scenes with another morbidly obese teenager, Brittany, are just cynical. A student at Huntington High School, she reveals in the third episode that doctors have told her she has "spots" on her liver and has perhaps seven years to live. The show tugs your heartstrings as she breaks down repeatedly, citing Jamie as her last, best hope. Never mind his luscious cuisine is the last thing she needs. If Jamie really wanted to help, he could part with a smidgen of his $60 million fortune that he has amassed while building an Oprah-like media empire and pay for intensive counseling, behavioral modification, gastric bypass surgery and follow-up care, which is probably the only way to save Brittany's life.

Interestingly, the "Food Revolution" replicates another ABC show dealing with food, health and fitness -- the 2006 "Shaq's Big Challenge." What these shows and the whole makeover genre do, argue scholars Laurie Ouellette and James Hay, is remake social welfare within a "market logic that values entrepreneurialism, mass customization and profit accumulation" so that "people who are floundering can and must be taught to develop and maximize their capacities for normalcy, happiness, material stability, and success rather than rely on a public 'safety net.'"

'Breakfast Pizza'

The manipulation of the Edwards family, Brittany and viewers' emotions might be forgiven if the show was really going to change our food system, but it is not. The school food system does need a complete overhaul, but many school districts are trying to make the best of a bad situation, which Jamie never acknowledges. Given severe funding constraints and conflicting guidelines, there is an economic and nutritional logic to serving pizza and flavored milk for breakfast, as we see Central City Elementary do in the very first episode.

Richard J. Goff, the executive director of West Virginia's Office of Child Nutrition, says, "The pizza is not pizza like you'd purchase from a Wal-Mart or Kroger, it's made with low-fat cheese and a whole wheat crust."

Dr. Harris, co-director of West Virginia University's Health Research Center, says, "The standard school foods they show are far healthier than they appear. The French fries are baked, not fried. The pizza and other breads are typically made with whole grain products. But these are not necessarily highlighted to students."

That the school serves breakfast in the first place is an example of West Virginia's efforts to raise the standards. Goff says it "is the first state in the nation to have a breakfast program mandate that breakfast must be offered to children in all schools." He also points out that in 2008 the state enacted "the most progressive nutrition standards in the nation," which were drawn up by the Institute of Medicine. West Virginia has also removed soda sales during the school day, except for two counties out of 55 that allow it in high schools. Goff adds there are no outside vendors and "we do not permit a la carte sales."

Author Jan Poppendieck explains that a la carte food "undermines the nutritional integrity of school meals." She says kids "can pick at the parts of school lunch they feel like eating and then fill up with pastries. They have on their tray a meal that has been planned to meet nutrition standards, but then they can buy candy, and research shows that they do. Children who were in school without a la carte options ate more of the official lunch."

So even though these kids are eating "breakfast pizza" with "luminous pink" milk, it's probably more nutritious than what they would eat otherwise, assuming their parents were even able to feed them breakfast. The median household income in the city of Huntington is about 55 percent of the U.S. average. We never learn that a phenomenal 86 percent (pdf) of the children at Central City Elementary qualify for free or near-free meals because of widespread poverty.

These schools are being blamed for being on the end of a broken-down system. Jamie never says a word about McDonald's, junk-food advertising aimed at children, or how the corporate control of food is squeezing out the very small, local producers he claims to value so much. Perhaps it's because he pockets nearly $2 million a year shilling for Sainsbury's, one of the largest grocers in the United Kingdom. One critic blasts Jamie for pushing "ready-made foods" while "there is little evidence of his stardust" at Sainsbury's, chock full of "hundreds of lines of salty, sugary, fatty foods."

Customers or Students?

Another reason Central City Elementary uses processed foods is budgeting issues. The federal government reimburses schools a paltry $2.68 for lunches and $1.46 for breakfasts (pdf) for children who qualify as long as the food meets specific guidelines. Goff, of the Office of Child Nutrition, says in Cabell County, where the elementary school is located, "they are cooking from scratch 50 percent of the time." He adds that "50 percent of the cost to produce a meal is in the form of labor. It's kind of hard to purchase fresh fruit and vegetables. You pay a premium for those."

Poppendieck says after school districts pay for labor, equipment, administration, transport, storage and other expenses, it leaves them with "somewhere between 85 cents and a dollar" for the actual ingredients for lunches. For breakfast, even assuming a generous ratio for purchasing ingredients, Central City has perhaps 60 cents to buy the food for a government-approved, reimbursable meal. Try buying breakfast for 60 cents; it won't even get you a Snickers bar.

The way the school food program is structured, the federal government only reimburses schools for what they actually serve. Goff says in West Virginia, "Participation in our program drives funding. ... You have to prepare foods and menus that children are going to eat or you're defeating the purpose." Boosting student participation increases food budgets in two ways: it lowers the costs of meals by creating greater economies of scale, and more meals sold mean a higher percentage of money can go toward purchasing food ingredients because labor, equipment and administration are mostly fixed costs.

This leads school systems to try to maximize revenue by catering to children's tastes formed by the fast-food industry, which is why there are so many burgers, chicken nuggets, fries and pizza on the menu. Poppendieck says because schools are in the "situation of selling food to children rather than having it as a regular part of the day," they treat students as "customers," driving "the menu toward what appeals to kids."

As one solution, she proposes making school lunches free for all students. Another would be to increase the reimbursement rate. The Child Nutrition Act currently before the Senate would increase amount of funding by an "extra 6 cents per meal per student for schools that meet new, stricter nutrition guidelines." That's right, a whole 6 cents. Poppendieck says this could backfire because "raising the standards without increasing the amount of resources may drive schools out of the program."

As it turns out, Jamie's "Food Revolution" is not so different from normal school fare. A complete breakdown of the first three weeks of his lunch meals included Beef Stew, Spaghetti with Meat Sauce, Sloppy Joes, Beef Goulash, Beef Stroganoff, Double Thick Cheesy Pizza and Beefy Nachos. So much for healthy eating.

Food Fit for Pets

Then there are liability issues. If a child is sickened by food cooked in the school, the school district is legally responsible. But by reheating factory-made food, the school can push the liability "upstream," making the processor liable for any illnesses. School food service directors tell Poppendieck they "feel that meat has become more dangerous, and they're not sure if the schools have the equipment or controls to properly cook the meats." This is backed up by a series of articles in USA Today that found fast-food companies "are far more rigorous in checking for bacteria and dangerous pathogens" than the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the feds have kept school officials in the dark about specific food product warnings and failed to shut down contaminated plants; and in the last decade the USDA spent $145 million for "spent-hen meat" for school lunches that is normally used for pet food and compost.

There is another liability issue. School meals must meet two sets of standards to be reimbursable. One, they must provide a minimum amount of proteins, minerals, vitamins and calories. Two, meals must contain a maximum of 30 percent of calories from fat and 10 percent from saturated fat. (The first set of standards was established during WWII when there was a fear of shortages; the second was put in place during the '80s when fat-phobia came into fashion.) This creates an incentive for schools to purchase processed foods from government-approved manufacturers because the companies are the ones held liable if the foods don't meet nutritional standards.

Poppendieck says this bureaucratic maze "creates a difficult situation ... where technical and legal compliance are counter to intent. Food service directors all over the country have told me they were taken to task by their state administrators for being a few calories short, and even hit with financial penalties." She says this is another reason why schools "end up opting for less healthy requirements."

Drink Your Flavored Milk

Flavored milk stands out as one of those less healthy requirements. Jamie Oliver directs much of his ire toward the chocolate milk and the pink milk, which he repeatedly claims has more sugar than soda. Sounds appalling. Except, Goff says, "That's not true that flavored milk has more sugar than soft drinks." He says, "On average, an eight-ounce serving of low-fat chocolate milk contains about four teaspoons of added sugar, while an equivalent amount of soft drink contains seven teaspoons." Goff adds that a cup of milk does contain almost three more teaspoons of naturally occurring sugar in the form of lactose.

It is disingenuous not to acknowledge nearly half the sugar in milk is lactose. The real scandal is how Jamie's zero-tolerance policy for flavored milk caused a huge drop in milk consumption. For the two months before the Food Revolution program was introduced, milk consumption at Central City Elementary was 632 units a day. For two months after, it plunged to 472 units a day.

Goff says, "I was upset the most with the flavored milk consumption. The reason they advocate it is it increases the consumption of milk and get the vitamins and nutrients they need. ... When students stop drinking milk that's a great cause of concern. I don't believe the sugar content is a great cause of concern." Nonetheless, adds Goff, if there are concerns about children receiving too much sugar from flavored milk, the state can work with processors to lower the amount of sugar.

In what may surprise some, Jan Poppendieck is no absolutist when it comes to flavored milk either. She brings up another important factor, "eating habits." Fond of chocolate milk as a child, she says "I don't have all the negative connotations when I see chocolate milk. I would encourage kids to try low-fat unflavored milk, but I wouldn't be in a hurry to ban chocolate milk from my cafeteria." She laughs after making this comment, saying it may haunt her for years to come.

There's also another complexity behind the spread of flavored milk: those dueling nutrition guidelines and lack of funds. If a school district finds a meal has too much fat, it can raise the calorie count to lower the proportion of fat. "The quickest, least expensive fix ... is to add sugar," writes Poppendieck. "Sweetened, flavored milks have become a staple of the cafeteria, and desserts are making a comeback. An additional serving of vegetables, the element in which American diets are most glaringly deficient, would usually fill the calorie gap, but it is beyond the financial reach of most schools."

Jamie Flunks Out

Turns out that even with an unlimited budget, Jamie was unable to design a menu that provided a minimum number of calories while not exceeding the fat limits. A nutritional analysis of the first three weeks of meals (15 lunches) at Central City Elementary conducted by the West Virginia Board of Education flunked him on both counts. A whopping 80 percent of his lunches exceeded either the total fat or saturated fat allowance, and most of the time both, and 40 percent of his lunches provided too few calories. Although to be fair this may unfortunately be the norm across the country. According to author Jill Richardson, only 6 to 7 percent of schools actually meet all the government's nutrition standards in their lunches.

On top of that, according to the survey conducted by Dr. Harris and Dr. Bradlyn, "77 percent of the students indicated they were 'very unhappy' with the new foods served at school." During the first two months, the lunch participation rate dropped from 75 percent to 66 percent among surveyed students, and milk drinking evaporated by 25 percent.

Dr. Bradlyn said at least in the short term, "the Food Revolution program did have an impact: it was not what you wanted to see. You wanted to see kids drinking milk and eating a nutritious meal." Dr. Harris added that as Cabell County "rolled the program out they have seen declines [in participation] in other schools. We don't know if that's a short-term decline ... But one could say it's not a great thing."

Even more troubling, according to Dr. Harris, some teachers who participated in the survey commented "that students were not getting enough to eat." In numerous scenes in the "Food Revolution" kids who kept trying to eat Jamie's meals are shown spitting out food or dumping nearly full lunch trays into the bin.

Goff called the declines "staggering." He expressed concern because "improved test scores, decreased tardies, fewer behavioral problems and improved classroom participation ... are all byproducts of increased participation in the school meal program."

A document from the West Virginia Department of Education indicates Jamie's escapades put Cabell County's entire lunch program at risk. It stated: "Noncompliance with meal pattern and nutrient standard requirements may result in a recovery of federal funds." In plain English, the county could lose a large amount of funding because of the failure to meet the standards.

While Jamie did raise $80,000 to pay for trainers to teach cooks in all of Cabell County's 28 schools to produce the new menus, a document from the county outlined many other expenses that have not been detailed on the show. Meal preparation required more cooks to the tune of $66,000 a year; each school needed new equipment ranging from $20 containers to $2,945 commercial-grade food processors; the county was paying more for fresher items, such as cooked chicken at an additional 10 cents a serving; schools that rolled over to the new program were unable to use "donated food" from the USDA, valued at $522,974.68 last year, with officials bluntly noting, "The program cannot afford to lose this amount"; and the county was losing purchasing power because it was having difficulty getting the fresh ingredients through the buying cooperative it shares with eight other counties.

In a perverse way, Jamie Oliver has highlighted many of the shortcomings of the U.S. food system. But it was like taking a wrecking ball to a termite-infested house to show the rot inside at the cost of smashing the structure. That he failed to meet the nutritional guidelines, went way over budget and put the school district at risk of losing federal funding is bad enough. The fact that so many children stopped drinking milk, dropped out of the program and appeared to be eating less food, strongly suggests they were worse off under his program. As Cabell County has sidelined his menu it's more evidence that the "Food Revolution" collapsed at the barricades.

That said, school food could be improved tremendously. But it's a comment on how bad the broader food system and culture is when studies show kids who participate in the school lunch program are eating healthier food than they would otherwise. One teacher who blogs about school lunches points out that "Lunchables" -- a package of highly processed crackers, meat and cheese and candy -- have become "standard fare in many lunchboxes across the country."

Who knows how many kids in Cabell County who dropped out of the lunch program after being turned off by Jamie's food turned to junk food like Lunchables or even worse options, such as the kids in my high school who would make a meal out of French fries, fruit pies and ice cream.

Some will try to find the silver lining by saying at least Jamie is raising the flawed school food program as a national concern. This is true, but he's so far done it in a way that gives little understanding of the complexity of the issue. By the time Jamie Oliver has moved on to his million-dollar next project, if he hasn't already, the teachers, students, parents, farmers, administrators and community activists fighting for a completely new school food system will still be on the ground, doing the hard work. Perhaps Jamie should have focused on how they have been struggling for years on a grassroots Food Revolution, rather than hogging the limelight.

Arun Gupta is a founding editor of The Indypendent newspaper. He is writing a book on the decline of American empire for Haymarket Books.

Comments

Jamie needs to take a few lessons from the School Food Service...In the school district that I work in, we have made huge changes in the past several years, in an attempt to meet all the federal guide lines and provide our students with tasty, nutritional and well balanced meals for breakfast and lunch. All of our snacks are baked not fried and are limitied.

WOW! How refreshing to read an article by a media person who REALLY GETS IT!! As a school FSD, I am printing this article for my school board to read- and any parent who doesn't understand why we have to operate the way we do. School food service personal are often called magicians by the way we have to create meals that kids will buy (and also EAT) and that meet strict USDA guidelines with just pennies per meal. I also know that SNA (School Nutrition Assoc.) reached out to ABC in order to bring them into some of our many schools who are doing wonderful things with their programs but ABC would not hear of it. Of course not- they are making huge advertising dollars off of Jamie's slanted "sensational" slanderous episodes.....surprise, surprise.

There are 365 days in a year, if one eats 3 meals per day, this is a total of 1095 meals. Students are in school 180 days, if they are there everyday and eat both breakfast and lunch at school, they would consume 360 meals, 32.8% of their meals at school. Yet the school meals program is getting the brunt of the blame for childhood obesity. Where does parental and personal responsibility come into play? For the majority of kids the meals they eat at school are the healthiest meals they have all day.

Jamie Oliver's European TV shows were never known for their nutritional content. Like most chefs, high fat, red meat disches lots of heavy sauses and creams; his popularity was on the decline in Europe and the producer hit on a hot button topic to do a reality TV show on childhood obesity and school lunches in America. We fell hook, line and sinker; he is in the business to make money, even the school district in West Virginia he is working with, I'm sure was paid well to fall in line and make the show sell and it did. Come on folks, use common sense in looking at these issues.

I am a School Nutrition Program Director for a school district with 58,000 students. We serve 36,000 lunches and 18,000 breakfast daily. No one could be more concerned about the health and wellbeing of the students in our schools than I am. Our school district has for the past several years taken the initative to provide healthy meals to our students even changing the meal pattern developed by USDA because it made sense, to do so. An extra fruit/vegetable serving was allowed at both breakfast and lunch (allowing for 2 for breakfast and 3 at lunch, where the USDA pattern called for 1 at breakfast and 2 at lunch). The Food Guide Pyrmid recommends from 7-9 servings daily for school age children. With the 3 servings the USDA meal pattern allowed for, it is unrealistic for students to get the recommended number of servings daily if we were only allowing for 3 (total) with breakfast and lunch. However by giving the 5 servings daily, it is very possible for students to actually get the 7-9 total servings of fruits and vegetables daily. Fruits and vegetables are high in fiber and more filling, thus the students are not famished at the end of the school day and want to eat at the first fast food establishment they come to or raid the cabinents when they get home. Also, we offer only milk with 1% or less butter fat, all whole grain breakfast cereals, and choices of whole grain breads and buns along side of breads made with enriched grains. Fresh fruits and vegetables are available daily at each school. The salt shakers and salt packets were removed years ago and a limited amount of salt is added for flavor in preparation.

What is needed is balance in all areas not extremes, in either direction; and we as adults must take personal responsibility for ourselves and teaching our children and not place blame for our shortcomings on the government, schools, etc.

I am extremely grateful that this author has taken the time to research and report a complete review of this "Food Revolution" reality show. The reality is, this article takes us to a "Food Revelation". It is revealing school lunch successes... of being able to do so much for kids with so little resources. The reality show is not revealing the true care and committment given to the student customer by school staff across the nation. Are we killing our kids? I don't think so! Then again, positive success stories doesn't make a reality show does it!

Please stop blaming the school lunches. The children aren't in school 7 days a week for 52 weeks! Most children only eat lunch at school 5 days a week for the calendar school year. Let's remember where else they are fed. Look at what some parents are putting in their grocery carts. That can be very scary, soft drinks, chips, crackers, sugary cereals, boxed dinners and candy. Lot's of prepared food can be purchased at the supermarkets and that isn't always the healthiest way to eat either!

I, too, am a Nutrition Services Director for the past 17 years. The bottom lilne becomes that food is only nutritious if it is consumed. I have found over the last five years in particular that student habits can be improved with the addition of healthy foods offered repetitively. Students do learn to consume new foods and find that they actually like them. The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program sponsored by USDA is a prime example of educating students about new foods and introducing them in the school environment. Expansion of this program would benefit all Americans. A very serious concern for our country as a whole is the concept of personal responibility. Laying blame on school lunch for chldhood obesity is just one stark example of how we do not "look in the mirror" to try to solve our issues. Budget concerns are a huge reality for school lunch programs. With decreasing state and federal aid, unfunded mandates by the government, most school lunch programs are required to operate as a business, Generating sufficient revenue to pay employee salaries/benefits, replace equipment and keep pace with the increasing food costs and shrinking labor market for part time work make our jobs extremely difficult. The "Food Revolution" has definitely sparked much debate. Hopefully this will lead to improved dialouge and increased awareness of the valuable role that schools play in promoting the health and well being of our society, as was originally stated in the National School Lunch Act of 1946.

I Hate how this shows makes our state look, What is sad and needs to be addressed is this: Many of the schools in WV serve to lower income families that may or may not get food stamps and are struggling to find their next meal. Many kids in our school systems in WV only get food when they are in school. So a high calorie meal for lunch is why the school lunch standards are so strict. This show leaves out many of the details of what the standards are and why they need to be meet!!! I do see the need for kids to get up and get active honestly this is what will decrease the obesity issues in the American children!!!
This article is a great statment of what he doesn't know or understand about WV! He needs to aim his vision to the fast food chains that are the real issue of America!!!!

I'm sorry, I think I'm missing something? But are folks on this thread saying that the Elementary school breakfast and lunch items students were eating at the beginning of the series was appropriate and nutritious?? I like Jamie alot and think that this idea was and is a great idea, but I was a big critic of the menu he chose for ELEMENTARY kids!! And who thinks kids at that age will jump from sugary, fried foods and pizza to his more sophisticated menu without much of a blink?? That was just dumb.

Still, all the above comments about parental responsibility are spot on and important...and kudos to all our public school food workers...you are all hard working Americans looking out for our kids.

I am with you Ed. I think that the people on this thread are actually defending those meals from the beginning of the series. I see that as one of the problems with our eating habits. That pizza (whether it's whole wheat crust or not) is NOT appropriate for breakfast. I am appalled that people are defending the colored milk which is full of sugar (lactose is not a sugar that our bodies process easily) and additives. Those are chemicals that make the milk pink and brown. In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan is a MUST READ that paints the true picture of what the government is doing to its people. It's all about money. It's doesn't matter what your political affiliation is. The government is not looking out for you and your family. It's looking out for the profit of the companies that line their pockets. Wake up, America! The government is slowly killing us by pushing this garbage down our throats.

You can point the finger at the school system, you can point it at the USDA, you can point it at the parents. And then you can spend years arguing whether ketchup and french fries are a vegetable or not. You can beg the USDA to change the guidelines, the calorie content, the fat content, which may or may not happen. You can add 4 teaspoons of sugar to the milk or 7 teaspoons, you can turn the milk bright blue. The kids can eat meals at school or not. All this arguing doesn't get us anywhere. The kids have grown into giant fat tubs of lard that will be dead before they are 35. They don't like going outside, the don't take any risks, they don't like doing anything that doesn't involve a cell phone, computer and video game. These children are our special creation, thank God there are several starving Latinos crossing our boarders daily that are willing to work, otherwise we would really be in a bind.

Excellent job Arun Gupta, author of this well researched article. I agree with Barbara Kunkler;
children are not obese because of school lunches, they are obese because of the year-round poor eating habits and sedentary lifestyles they are learning at home. As long as there is an obesity epidemic among adults/parents, there will also be an obesity epidemic among their children. Also, the fast food media can't be seen if the TV is off.

While I agree that the Jamie Oliver program is a puff piece designed to highlight a problem and not necessarily solve it, it doesn't remove the blame from the school lunch system. I found this line in your article particularly telling: "... the school has reintroduced the regular school menu and flavored milk because the “Food Revolution” meals were so unpopular."

Should we also allow children to drive the bus to school? Of course they prefer salty or sugary foods to wholesome food! (There is no restriction on sugar under NSLP, and salt is tracked but not restricted.) They are KIDS - they like comic books better than literature, and video games better than arithmatic! It is our responsibility as adults to engage them in learning to make the right choices, and healthy eating is something school lunch programs should be teaching by example.

The remainder of this article is the standard response of school nutritionists everywhere: it's the media's fault, it's the government's fault, it's the parent's fault. The fact remains - school lunch is using ever-scarcer tax dollars (which come out of not only your and my pocket, but also the pockets of the underpriviledged who desperately need nutrition support) to subsidize NUTRITION and right now that is not what this money is doing. I am sorry that nutritionists feel put-upon, but this system needs to change, and it needs to change at a grassroots level. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act is a good start - but the schools can voluntarily restrict sugar and salt to meet the new AHA guidelines, and can find inexpensive ways to increase vegetables, whole grains, and fruit.

I appreciate the article and what's being said. I disagree that the school lunches are the ONLY thing Jaime is addressing. I like how he is attempting to educate parents, children, administration, and government on healthy food and lifestyles. It's difficult to see that in a one hour show once a week, but it is there. I also disagree that what has us coming back for more of the show is the emotional stories sprinkled with a little truth and hot button issues. There are too many issues here to blame one show for not getting it right. Bottom line: they're trying.

It is true that most Americans are not educated as to what we are feeding ourselves or our children. I admit as a mother of 3 that convenience rules sometimes, but it is easy to get carried away and forget to monitor what we're eating. Since my children have food allergies I MUST read ingredients labels and I am APPALLED at what we are adding to simple everyday foods (cheese, yogurt, granola bars, lunch meat) that I would otherwise simply consider healthy without questioning them.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of hurdles to tackle all around. How to introduce healthy foods to kids at home and at school, letting go of our own convenience food dependence and realizing that fresh can also be convenient, cutting way back (or out altogether) fast food (including lunchables, "snack packs," and those things that require heavy preservatives, additives, etc), teaching kids (and ourselves) to be active, and we have some government issues to tackle as well.

It's too large a problem to say that one person is doing it wrong. If you listen to everything he's saying, he IS NOT blaming the problem exclusively on school lunches. It's simply a starting point- a tough one- but a starting point. At least he has us talking to each other about it. Perhaps by stirring the pot a little WE'LL figure out how to solve these issues, diverse as they are.

………….missing the point!.............Just because the kids won’t eat his healthier food doesn’t make it a bad idea. We may as well serve kids chocolate cake for breakfast, lunch, and dinner because that’s what they like and it’s cheap. The problem is that we’ve fallen into a lifestyle of bad habits and attitudes towards food and fitness that have brought us to our current condition of obesity and poor health. The change absolutely has to start at home, but fresh, healthier food has to be made more affordable and accessible to everyone starting with lower income families. Not an easy order to fill, but don’t condemn a man who is drawing attention to an obvious problem if only to raise awareness!

I watched a few episodes of the food revolution and was horrified by the school lunch system in the US. The system needs a complete overhaul. I think the problem is not the foods being offered, but the way the children are being fed in schools. I don't think elementary school children should be able to walk into a cafeteria and choose what they want for lunch. I don't know many adults who would be able to make a healthy choice when they have fries and burgers under their noses. I live in Canada, and in my city, kids bring their lunches or parents can order from a menu ahead of time and the child is given their meal at lunchtime. The lunches brought from outside are provided by a caterer. There are three choices for every day and parents go on to a web site and order it as late as the night before. A typical option might be honey garlic chicken, rice, broccoli and carrots, fruit and milk. Unhealthy foods are not even allowed in the schools. As for the flavoured milk, I know a lot of kids and almost every single one of them loves and happily drinks plain milk, why? because they are not offered flavoured milks. Quit giving these kids options, there is no kid that is going to choose a healthy meal when they can have junk food and the more you give them the more they'll want. They are not equipped to make these decisions, they're kids!!! They do not understand the consequences of eating unhealthy food and even if they did, the consequences are not immediate, a week is a long time for a kid so don't even try to tell them about consequences that will take effect in 6 months, 5 years or 20 years. Just take care of them and teach them, instill good habits and don't set them up for failure by providing them with crap, you wouldn't teach your kid how to smoke a cigarette, why teach them how to poison their bodies with processed food.
Then there is the other issue of limiting fat content and calories in these kids. I don't think the calories and fat is a problem, it's the source of the calories and fat. North America is the only country that has an obsession with low fat and diet products yet it has the highest rate of obesity. North Americans think things like fettucini alfredo made with low fat products is healthy, NO!!! The low fat industry is just giving us a taste for unhealthy foods, instead of fake low-fat fettucini alfredo, we should learn to appreciate tomato and vegetable-based sauces, learn how to eat salads without creamy dressing and when we do eat these foods eat the real thing, but in moderation. I am thoroughly convinced that butter is much healthier than low fat margarine and real mayo is better for you than the overly processed low fat stuff that is designed to make us think we can eat it in mass quantities because it hardly has any calories. Look at what fat people are eating, low fat this and diet that, then look at what fit people are eating... and in most cases it has nothing to do with metabolism and everything to do with the types of food and quantity. It is everyone's responsibility (schools, parents, gov) to teach our kids good eating habits in the same way we teach them to do anything else.

I thought the whole purpose of school was education? but wait a second how much money does the US put into education from our tax dollars? oh I forgot it all went to our military budget and our out of control foreign deficit! Now the military is upset that the future will be nothing but obese soldiers, ouch!

what a terrible article. one of the leading nutritional researchers in the country, Walter Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health, has argued to the point of exhaustion that the crusade against dietary fat (named above as a villain) has made the obesity problem in the US far worse. he also points out that there is no reason why milk should be considered an essential part of the diet, while the article above laments that Jamie Oliver is discouraging children from drinking pink milk! how ridiculous! for vitamin a, kids can eat carrots; for vitamin d, they can play outside; for b vitamins, they can eat meat; for calcium, they can eat green vegetables; and they can do without the lactose, the elimination of which will help to treat nascent insulin resistance and possibly help to struggle against the obesity problem.

So there's a man, a professional (he does what he does for a living and he's good at it, of course he rakes in money) cook & TV personality, working for over a decade to examine and improve what's going down people's throats, and he gets complaints that he's not efficient-practical-frugal-realistic-cutting-edge-self-effacing enough. He has charms and talents and uses it for better things than most in the industry. As the writer so elaborately puts it, it's a show; if it's not entertaining or sentimental, no one would watch it. If the kids find the dramatic improvement of their lunch menu - however people argue with calorie intake & fat contents, what he served is much better than what was being served and no, their lunch pre-Oliver wasn't acceptable on any level - repulsive, then it's their loss, and that should be fixed. Not some show promoting healthy food.

I don't agree with the article. Jamie never said that improving school lunches alone would solve the whole problem. He tried to tackle the issue from different angles. I totally agree that obesity is a complex problem that needs to be addressed in different areas: parents, food industry, advertising etc.
But to bash Jamie's initiative just because there's more to be done than he an his TV series can do is ridiculous. What did he say on the radio: If everybody acted like you do, we'd get nothing done.
Jamie's Food Revolution is a move in the right direction - let's try to use the positive impact and continue working on the issues still unsolved.